Opinion
Def. ID# 9809013934.
March 31, 2005.
Order — Motion for Return of Property.
Dear Mr. Proctor:
This is my decision on your second Motion for Return of Property. The hearing on your first Motion for Return of Property was held on July 19, 2002. At that hearing, I ruled, and you agreed, that your red trailer had been returned. I asked you on several occasions to describe the other property you sought to be returned. You suggested that two gym bags were confiscated. As the evidence dictated, I determined that one gym bag was never taken and one was returned to Ms. Forker. You concurred with this finding. You also suggested that you were missing letters addressed to you that were written by Ms. Forker. However, by your very own testimony, you indicated that you had copies of the missing letters. You were unable to articulate to this Court with any clarity any other property that was missing. At the end of the hearing, I determined that your Motion for Return of Property was moot.
Transcript of First Motion to Return Property Hearing at 9.
The Supreme Court, in an Order dated November 12, 2003, held that this Court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to rule on other unspecified items that were not a part of your original motion. In your current Motion for Return of Property you again fail to state with any clarity the items you are missing. You cite to several exhibits in your Motion, but they deal specifically with the same blue gym bags that were previously determined to have been returned to Ms. Forker or not taken. Thus, your second Motion for Return of Property is merely redundant and is hereby DISMISSED.
Proctor v. State, Del. Supr., No. 627, 2002, Steele, J. (November 12, 2003).